Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

God is not only possible but plausible

Posted on: June 17, 2007 - 1:08pm

Cpt_pineapple

Posts: 5492

Joined: 2007-04-12

Offline

God is not only possible but plausible

In this essay, I am testing an idea about God, that I may use in other forums uses, and am running it by everyone to work out the details and get feedback. This is mainly my ideas from other topics condensed into one.

Since Einstien's famous E=mc^2 equation, modern physics has been turned upside down. This principle has opened up new doors in the pyramid of knowledge, and shown that matter is nothing but an illusion. What we percieve of a proton or electron is no more at high energies. In fact, in dealing with high energy particle physics, electron volts (ev) are used to denote the mass of the particle. One ev is 1.6x10^-17 Joules. This shows that matter and energy are interchangable in relation to it's constant of inertia (a.k.a mass). As you know energy (light for example) travels in waves. Well, an electron does the same thing, this is shown in electron diffraction:

(image from wikipedia).

Basically due to the Heinsenburg uncertainty principle, electrons travel in waves of probability known as De-Broglie waves. Like light, these waves can interact in either constructive or destructive interference. It is this basis that also allows quantum tunneling. That is for an electron to spontaniously tunnell through a barrier. This is the nail in the coffin of classical physics being applied to high energy/quantum problems. These quantum effects cannot be explained using the classical 'the electron is just a charged particle sphere' theory. Instead, it shows that matter is merely an illusion, that what we percieve as an electron is not quite a charged sphere of a defined magnetic spin or angular momentum. It is so much more.

However, these particles still obey the laws of physics. However, recent theories in physics reveal a whole new perspective. The multiverse theory holds that there may be an infinite number of other universes. Each with it's own laws of physics, each with it's own potiental. The multiverse is the ultimate poster child for infinite potiental. What is not possible in one universe is possible in another. Things that don't happen in our universe, happens in another. There is potiental for different forms of life, for higher technology that this universe could only dream of.

Speaking of life, the theory of evolution is taking dominance in the field of biology. Every crediable biologist is singing there praise for it and rushing to find out more, to make more discoveries. There is an incrediable amount of life on this planet. Countless number of species and sub-species, all are evolving into better life forms better suited for their enviroment. They are evolving to get the most out of their enviroment.

(image from wikipedia)

This is a bit odd isn't it? Particle physics, multiverse theory and evolution in an essay about God? Many people think that these principles condratict God, that no God is required to make these come to life. Why would God use evolution to put us here? Why the Bigbang? Why have an infinite number of universes, some may not even have life?

The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do. That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter. Much like a slide that is inserted into a projector, the brain limits the infinite consciousness into finite experience. Our brains may have infinite potiental, people have read books once and memorized them. The world record for the most digits of pi memorized is over 22,000!

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness.

But how can potiental be turned into experience? Imagine a projector. Turn it on and a white light will be on the screen. However, this white light alone is useless. Only potiental. Anybody who flashed white light through a prism knows that white light is many colours. This is the concept of 'creation from subtraction'. Now insert a slide, of say a red car. Now the white light turns the infinite potiental into the finitely real. The red car appears on the screen because it filters out the colours that are not red. It creates the red by subtracting the non-red.

So why would God, want to create us? If he is indeed infinite what's the point? Why create things?

As Dr. Haisch puts it in the book 'The God Theory'

'Imagine having a billion dollars in you bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it?........He(God) gets to act out and live out his ideas, his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.'

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences.

If all the matter in the universe is an illusion, I must be an illusion too, as I am made up of matter in the universe.

Therefore, is there any need to worry about going to hell if I don't worship this god? Is the Bible the word of this god too, because if it is he's lying to us with it, saying he created man 6,000 years ago.

If the Bible isn't the word of this god, what god are you suggesting is real? What reason do any of us have to worry about what this god wants from us? Perhaps this god likes that we find it hard to believe in him.

If all the matter in the universe is an illusion, I must be an illusion too, as I am made up of matter in the universe.

No, you have a conscious mind, you are not merely an illusion

Quote:

Therefore, is there any need to worry about going to hell if I don't worship this god? Is the Bible the word of this god too, because if it is he's lying to us with it, saying he created man 6,000 years ago.

If the Bible isn't the word of this god, what god are you suggesting is real? What reason do any of us have to worry about what this god wants from us? Perhaps this god likes that we find it hard to believe in him.

Odd, I don't recall saying anything about the Bible or Young Earth Creationism.

As for your last point you atheists wanted a coherent God, and I tried to give you one in this essay.

Our minds are our brains, as far as we know. Everything we think or feel happens because of the electrical impulses within the brain. If you are suggesting some kind of soul, no proof exists for this.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Odd, I don't recall saying anything about the Bible or Young Earth Creationism.

True, so if you're not saying this is the god of the Bible, which god is it supposed to be? Is it one you have just made up?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As for your last point you atheists wanted a coherent God, and I tried to give you one in this essay.

I will admit this is one of the more interesting ideas for a god I've heard, but what would you have us do with this information? If there isn't any punishment or benefit to believing in this god, why should I bother?

I see it as something that is plausible, but only in the same way as thinking an invisible pixie made us in his cauldron, and we're now swirling around in his belly.

Many things are plausible, many things could be true, but with no prrof why should any of us be concerned about it? At the moment, it's just what our own imaginations are coming up with.

Our minds are our brains, as far as we know. Everything we think or feel happens because of the electrical impulses within the brain. If you are suggesting some kind of soul, no proof exists for this.

We feel these things because we are conscious.

serotonin_wraith wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Odd, I don't recall saying anything about the Bible or Young Earth Creationism.

True, so if you're not saying this is the god of the Bible, which god is it supposed to be? Is it one you have just made up?

A Pantheistic God.

serotonin_wraith wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As for your last point you atheists wanted a coherent God, and I tried to give you one in this essay.

I will admit this is one of the more interesting ideas for a god I've heard, but what would you have us do with this information? If there isn't any punishment or benefit to believing in this god, why should I bother?

I see it as something that is plausible, but only in the same way as thinking an invisible pixie made us in his cauldron, and we're now swirling around in his belly.

Many things are plausible, many things could be true, but with no prrof why should any of us be concerned about it? At the moment, it's just what our own imaginations are coming up with.

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

If I had a nickle for every time someone pulled the "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtian" crap, I'd make Bill Gates look like a street wineo.

"Science says , so theirfore since this "uncertainty" can be postulated "POOF" magic exists."

Been there done that.

Nothing stated in this original post adress HOW to demonstrate and replicate things like gosts knocking up girls, or human flesh surviving rigor mortis. It doesnt demonstrate multiple armed deities or how one obtains 72 virgins.

Speculating about the unknown is normal, but should be done objectively and certainly without starting from mythological Santas written by ignorant tribalistic boogiemen worshipors.

Just replace the word "God" with "Thor" or "Ra" or "Ouji boards" and you are still postulating the absurd.

What we dont know does not constitute never using the trash can when it comes to bad ideas. Otherwise we'd still think the world was flat.

God is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt. Please dont accuse me of being hatefull. Here let me demonstrate.

"Thor is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt"

"Petter Pan flying is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt".

What about reality? Why do people, not just your claim, but anyone? Why is it so hard to contimplate the much more reasonable and likely reality that people like making up fiction and believing it as fact? Does that ever occur to anyone?

Does it ever occur to anyone that they are subject to normal mundain, non-magical human emotion, and simply buy these myths based on emotional appeal? Does it ever occur to them that they merely like what they believe?

No, you cant be wrong. You'll do anything to fit a square peg in a round hole because of your ego. "It sucks to be wrong" is what makes superstition so hard to break free from.

The remedy is simple. Get over your fear.

"I am not like them". Heard that one too.

What is a "ora?" What is an "essance" What is a "spirit" what is a "pantheistic entity". What is it? Made up stuff that people like believing because the thought of not knowing scares them.

Please do reality a favor and leave lagit science alone. For example: Miosis is a discription of cell division and has no congitive capabilities to care less if Thomas Jefferson or the pope or Bin Ladin use their superstition to lay claim to it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

The point of the science at the start was to establish that matter is not what it seems, and is an illusion. What I did was try to establish why it is an illusion, and what could be causing this illusion.

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness.

Congratulations, Pineapple. You have rediscovered Gnosticism, a form of Christianity that syncretized with Neo-platonism.

Next you should consider whether the material world of illusion is a prison (mainstraim Gnosticism) or a playground (Valentinian Gnosticism) and then you'll know where you fit into the tradition.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

The point of the science at the start was to establish that matter is not what it seems, and is an illusion. What I did was try to establish why it is an illusion, and what could be causing this illusion.

How about something simple causing the illusion? How about humans fooling themselves into believing in crap?

"I am Napoliean. It must be true because I really really feel it."

How about "illusions" being just that? How about "illusions" merely being mind tricks we allow ourselves to be fooled into buying because we incert answers that arnt true, or that we might not have yet? Why overcomplectate it?

"I dont know" is a valid answer.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

If I had a nickle for every time someone pulled the "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtian" crap, I'd make Bill Gates look like a street wineo.

Then ask anyone who says that for a nickle

Quote:

"Science says , so theirfore since this "uncertainty" can be postulated "POOF" magic exists."

Been there done that.

No, I made it clear that there is no magic. That the universe still obeys the laws of physics.

Quote:

Nothing stated in this original post adress HOW to demonstrate and replicate things like gosts knocking up girls, or human flesh surviving rigor mortis. It doesnt demonstrate multiple armed deities or how one obtains 72 virgins.

I seem to have left out the zombies and the virgin part. I never said that you could replicate them in the first place.

Quote:

Speculating about the unknown is normal, but should be done objectively and certainly without starting from mythological Santas written by ignorant tribalistic boogiemen worshipors.

I never used any holy book in the essay

Quote:

Just replace the word "God" with "Thor" or "Ra" or "Ouji boards" and you are still postulating the absurd.

What we dont know does not constitute never using the trash can when it comes to bad ideas. Otherwise we'd still think the world was flat.

Show me counter evidence that mass isn't an illusion.

Quote:

God is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt. Please dont accuse me of being hatefull. Here let me demonstrate.

"Thor is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt"

"Petter Pan flying is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt".

O_o

Quote:

What about reality? Why do people, not just your claim, but anyone? Why is it so hard to contimplate the much more reasonable and likely reality that people like making up fiction and believing it as fact? Does that ever occur to anyone?

Apperently not

Quote:

Does it ever occur to anyone that they are subject to normal mundain, non-magical human emotion, and simply buy these myths based on emotional appeal? Does it ever occur to them that they merely like what they believe?

Once again, no magic in my essay

Quote:

No, you cant be wrong. You'll do anything to fit a square peg in a round hole because of your ego. "It sucks to be wrong" is what makes superstition so hard to break free from.

The remedy is simple. Get over your fear.

"I am not like them". Heard that one too.

What is a "ora?" What is an "essance" What is a "spirit" what is a "pantheistic entity". What is it? Made up stuff that people like believing because the thought of not knowing scares them.

I explained what a pantheistic entity is in the essay.

Quote:

Please do reality a favor and leave lagit science alone. For example: Miosis is a discription of cell division and has no congitive capabilities to care less if Thomas Jefferson or the pope or Bin Ladin use their superstition to lay claim to it.

Cell division is run by DNA and is nessecary for life. I'm not explaining how it happens I'm trying to explain why. Why life continues and exists.

What do you mean he created us to filter all things? I never made that claim, I claimed that matter and consciousness are the filter of the infinite potiental.

It's quite hard to follow what you're saying. It's very vague.

When you said 'The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do. That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter.' it made me think you were saying we are a part of this god's experiences and consciousness.

We don't understand this infinite consciousness, so is it a force even beyond god or does god experience everything we do and adds it to his own consciousness?

Are you suggesting that the only reality anywhere is god and our consciousness?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

The point of the science at the start was to establish that matter is not what it seems, and is an illusion. What I did was try to establish why it is an illusion, and what could be causing this illusion.

Why does an illusion need a conscious cause anymore than anything else?

The entire model that you described can exist coherently without God. There is nothing in that model that requires, or even suggests the pan-universal intelligence you are postulating. Therefore we should dispense with the theory as unnecessary.

There is plenty of evidence showing God to be a construct of human imagination and intellect, and none showing him to be a naturally occuring entity. Without addressing this huge problem, I think your essay is seriously begging the question.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

If I had a nickle for every time someone pulled the "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtian" crap, I'd make Bill Gates look like a street wineo.

Then ask anyone who says that for a nickle

Quote:

"Science says , so theirfore since this "uncertainty" can be postulated "POOF" magic exists."

Been there done that.

No, I made it clear that there is no magic. That the universe still obeys the laws of physics.

Quote:

Nothing stated in this original post adress HOW to demonstrate and replicate things like gosts knocking up girls, or human flesh surviving rigor mortis. It doesnt demonstrate multiple armed deities or how one obtains 72 virgins.

I seem to have left out the zombies and the virgin part. I never said that you could replicate them in the first place.

Quote:

Speculating about the unknown is normal, but should be done objectively and certainly without starting from mythological Santas written by ignorant tribalistic boogiemen worshipors.

I never used any holy book in the essay

Quote:

Just replace the word "God" with "Thor" or "Ra" or "Ouji boards" and you are still postulating the absurd.

What we dont know does not constitute never using the trash can when it comes to bad ideas. Otherwise we'd still think the world was flat.

Show me counter evidence that mass isn't an illusion.

Quote:

God is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt. Please dont accuse me of being hatefull. Here let me demonstrate.

"Thor is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt"

"Petter Pan flying is about as logical as me claiming I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt".

O_o

Quote:

What about reality? Why do people, not just your claim, but anyone? Why is it so hard to contimplate the much more reasonable and likely reality that people like making up fiction and believing it as fact? Does that ever occur to anyone?

Apperently not

Quote:

Does it ever occur to anyone that they are subject to normal mundain, non-magical human emotion, and simply buy these myths based on emotional appeal? Does it ever occur to them that they merely like what they believe?

Once again, no magic in my essay

Quote:

No, you cant be wrong. You'll do anything to fit a square peg in a round hole because of your ego. "It sucks to be wrong" is what makes superstition so hard to break free from.

The remedy is simple. Get over your fear.

"I am not like them". Heard that one too.

What is a "ora?" What is an "essance" What is a "spirit" what is a "pantheistic entity". What is it? Made up stuff that people like believing because the thought of not knowing scares them.

I explained what a pantheistic entity is in the essay.

Quote:

Please do reality a favor and leave lagit science alone. For example: Miosis is a discription of cell division and has no congitive capabilities to care less if Thomas Jefferson or the pope or Bin Ladin use their superstition to lay claim to it.

Cell division is run by DNA and is nessecary for life. I'm not explaining how it happens I'm trying to explain why. Why life continues and exists.

You explaind what a pantheistic entity was? Humn? For a moment there I pictured myself at boardroom meeting at Marvel Comics.

"Well Steve, how do you think we should reach our intended demograpic?"

Steve, "Keep pandering and making crap up as we go along."

CHA CHING!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Why does an illusion need a conscious cause anymore than anything else?

An illusion is something that fools consciousness into thinking it's something that it's not. Matter fools the our conscious to think it is made up of protons and electrons.

serotonin_wraith wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Perhaps. An illusion of what?

Perhaps it's an illusion of an illusion.

That doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What do you mean he created us to filter all things? I never made that claim, I claimed that matter and consciousness are the filter of the infinite potiental.

It's quite hard to follow what you're saying. It's very vague.

When you said 'The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do. That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter.' it made me think you were saying we are a part of this god's experiences and consciousness.

We are a part of God's experiences and consciousness.

Quote:

We don't understand this infinite consciousness, so is it a force even beyond god or does god experience everything we do and adds it to his own consciousness?

Are you suggesting that the only reality anywhere is god and our consciousness?

'reality' is subjective. Our portion of reality (our universe) is just a part of the infinite potiental.

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness.

Congratulations, Pineapple. You have rediscovered Gnosticism, a form of Christianity that syncretized with Neo-platonism.

Next you should consider whether the material world of illusion is a prison (mainstraim Gnosticism) or a playground (Valentinian Gnosticism) and then you'll know where you fit into the tradition.

I'll need to read the article more, but so far I don't subsricbe to the In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elitepart.

The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do.

What evidence is there for a god?

Quote:

That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter.

What evidence do you have for an infinite conscious?

Quote:

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences.

Matter is not an illusion. It is real. Electrons, protons, and particles are real.

Quote:

So why would God, want to create us?

Where do you get that a god created us?

Quote:

As Dr. Haisch puts it in the book 'The God Theory'

'Imagine having a billion dollars in you bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it?........He(God) gets to act out and live out his ideas, his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.'

What evidence does Haisch have for this god?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

The simple answer is because God experiences the universe as much as you do.

What evidence is there for a god?

Quote:

That there is an infinite consciousness expanding to all the universes, and that our brains are merely a filter.

What evidence do you have for an infinite conscious?

Quote:

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences.

Matter is not an illusion. It is real. Electrons, protons, and particles are real.

Quote:

So why would God, want to create us?

Where do you get that a god created us?

Quote:

As Dr. Haisch puts it in the book 'The God Theory'

'Imagine having a billion dollars in you bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it?........He(God) gets to act out and live out his ideas, his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.'

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness.

Congratulations, Pineapple. You have rediscovered Gnosticism, a form of Christianity that syncretized with Neo-platonism.

Next you should consider whether the material world of illusion is a prison (mainstraim Gnosticism) or a playground (Valentinian Gnosticism) and then you'll know where you fit into the tradition.

I'll need to read the article more, but so far I don't subsricbe to the In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available only to a learned elitepart.

Well that lines you up with the Valentinian Gnostics or maybe just the outright Neo-Platonists. Under their scheme it's not necessary to free yourself from the world.

What you're calling the infinite or universal consciousness is what the Neo-Platonists called the Monad (literally "the One&quot. Humans and material reality and all that are just eminations of the Monad locked in (or participating in) illusory space/time.

Seriously, you'd save yourself a lot of time by checking out Elaine Pagels's books, and then reading some Carl Jung, then working backward into the Neo-Platonists and St. Valentine (the one who the day is named after). They came up with a coherent scheme for describing the cosmology that you're describing thousands of years ago.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert

Ok guys, we must submit to the wisdom of someone who is not postulating "traditional" hocus pocus.

He has dressed up his package in different papper and a different bow, with very pretty wrapping. So if we skeptics would just stop asking questions we would understand.

You see, he has gone to great lenghts to provide samples of atoms and molocules of his "pantheistic" entity. How ungratefull are we that we dont see this wonderfull "epifhany" he has had.

We shouldnt point out the obvious ambiguity he is wallowing in like all the others. You are spoiling his agenda.

He talks about illusion, but since we can be fooled, he defaults to US being fooled, and not him. Somehow of the 6 billion people on the planet, he got it right and we are under the grips of an "illusion".

Ok Mind Freak, bedazzle us with your peer reviewed studies. Show us the "DNA" of a "pantheistic" entity. I am quite sure you have a lab experement with control groups that could falsify this.

It couldnt be that you fool yourself with an "illusion" you like? No, somehow YOU got it right where all the others got it wrong.

"My pantheistic diety is real. Now prove that it isnt"

"Allah is real, now prove that he isnt"

"I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt. Now prove that I cant."

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Ok guys, we must submit to the wisdom of someone who is not postulating "traditional" hocus pocus.

He has dressed up his package in different papper and a different bow, with very pretty wrapping. So if we skeptics would just stop asking questions we would understand.

You see, he has gone to great lenghts to provide samples of atoms and molocules of his "pantheistic" entity. How ungratefull are we that we dont see this wonderfull "epifhany" he has had.

We shouldnt point out the obvious ambiguity he is wallowing in like all the others. You are spoiling his agenda.

He talks about illusion, but since we can be fooled, he defaults to US being fooled, and not him. Somehow of the 6 billion people on the planet, he got it right and we are under the grips of an "illusion".

Ok Mind Freak, bedazzle us with your peer reviewed studies. Show us the "DNA" of a "pantheistic" entity. I am quite sure you have a lab experement with control groups that could falsify this.

It couldnt be that you fool yourself with an "illusion" you like? No, somehow YOU got it right where all the others got it wrong.

Seriously, you'd save yourself a lot of time by checking out Elaine Pagels's books, and then reading some Carl Jung, then working backward into the Neo-Platonists and St. Valentine (the one who the day is named after). They came up with a coherent scheme for describing the cosmology that you're describing thousands of years ago.

Wallow in your fantacy all you want. I didnt missinterpret a thing. You like what you believe and that is it.

"Pantheistic entity"

"Flying Spagetti Monster"

"Purple snarfwiget"

You baught a lie someone sold you because you like the feeling of "standing out" "being different" "making your mark", which is no different than the ancient mythological lies people still buy today.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Right, because when the skeptic calls a duck a duck suddenly the goal posts move.

Yes you did. Let's take a look:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok guys, we must submit to the wisdom of someone who is not postulating "traditional" hocus pocus.

He has dressed up his package in different papper and a different bow, with very pretty wrapping. So if we skeptics would just stop asking questions we would understand.

You see, he has gone to great lenghts to provide samples of atoms and molocules of his "pantheistic" entity. How ungratefull are we that we dont see this wonderfull "epifhany" he has had.

We shouldnt point out the obvious ambiguity he is wallowing in like all the others. You are spoiling his agenda.

He talks about illusion, but since we can be fooled, he defaults to US being fooled, and not him. Somehow of the 6 billion people on the planet, he got it right and we are under the grips of an "illusion".

Here, you say that I said that everyone was under an illusion and that's why they can't see God. I never made that claim.

Quote:

Ok Mind Freak, bedazzle us with your peer reviewed studies. Show us the "DNA" of a "pantheistic" entity. I am quite sure you have a lab experement with control groups that could falsify this.

It couldnt be that you fool yourself with an "illusion" you like? No, somehow YOU got it right where all the others got it wrong.

"My pantheistic diety is real. Now prove that it isnt"

"Allah is real, now prove that he isnt"

"I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt. Now prove that I cant."

There are many scientific papers that will show that matter is interchangable with energy, De-Broglie waves, electron diffraction etc...

You seem to be implying (not just with this individual quote) that consciousness is the only "real" thing. If that's so, then how so? What is consciousness, and what does the most finite constituents of matter that we know of have anything to do with it? If you look into consciousness studies at all, the idea that consciousness is in any way independant from the physical brain dissolves rather quickly.

Your statement that our brains are "filters" of some sort for "god" to experience itself seems self-refuting. If matter is an illusion, then how can a material (illusory) brain work as any kind of filter for something that doesn't exist?

If the god is not "supernatural", he must be natural, and therefore illusory. This illusory god experiences an illusory universe with illusory brains in parallel with or from other illusory universes where he may or may not do other illusory things? All things illusory are happening through illusory interaction with illusory matter all at the same time, filtered by illusory brains in illusory bodies so that the illusory god can experience the illusion broken up and ordered into illusory time. (Therefore god exists!!)

How could this god experience anything, anyway, and why? When it comes down to it, how does any of this have any bearing on the plausibility of a god? Because it's all an illusion and we don't know (yet) what may or may not be in another universe? To me this whole thread can be boiled down to "We don't know what's outside of our universe, and when you look at matter closely enough it no longer resembles what we think of as matter. So because we don't know, it could be god!"

I'm sure you'll disagree with that assessment, but you have yet to fill in that huge leap between: matter is "illusory" -> multiple universes -> [_____] -> god! (despite many requests)

Nor have you given any coherent definition of "god" beyond disagreeing with others (also despite many requests).

And please don't just tell me that I'm incorrect. I'm quite well aware of that, and trying to point out the gaps you've left. Either provide a coherent description of these things or concede that you have none.

Seriously, you'd save yourself a lot of time by checking out Elaine Pagels's books, and then reading some Carl Jung, then working backward into the Neo-Platonists and St. Valentine (the one who the day is named after). They came up with a coherent scheme for describing the cosmology that you're describing thousands of years ago.

Never heard of them.

Question:

"Never heard of them" should be interpreted to mean, "They are irrelevant because I don't know who they are."

or

"Never heard of them" should be interpreted to mean, "I'll check out these people to see if they have something to tell me."

By saying that you've reinvented a 2500 year old idea I'm not saying your idea is bad. I'm saying that you could save a lot of time by looking at the antecedents of people who already thought of this stuff and using/extending their ideas to develop your own. Why reinvent the wheel when other smart people have already done the bulk of the work for you?

Personally I have a lot more respect for ideas that have a sense of their own history, whether I agree with them or not.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert

There are many scientific papers that will show that matter is interchangable with energy, De-Broglie waves, electron diffraction etc...

It's one thing to say that matter = energy, it's quite another to define that energy as "god". That takes a huge leap in logic.

Once again, the only way I can see your point is by assuming that god exists in the first place. By taking such a stance, what you are saying does make some sense, in an over-simplified way. However your point still takes such a leap in logic that it doesn't convince those of us that doubt that it's plausible. You need to show how it would somehow make more sense to any onlooker that the chances of it being a god are high enough to consider. Once again, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

You seem to be implying (not just with this individual quote) that consciousness is the only "real" thing. If that's so, then how so? What is consciousness, and what does the most finite constituents of matter that we know of have anything to do with it? If you look into consciousness studies at all, the idea that consciousness is in any way independant from the physical brain dissolves rather quickly.

Consciousness is potiental. We all have feelings of consciousness joy, sorrow etc... See below.

Quote:

Your statement that our brains are "filters" of some sort for "god" to experience itself seems self-refuting. If matter is an illusion, then how can a material (illusory) brain work as any kind of filter for something that doesn't exist?

Some say there can be no consciousness without matter. I say there can be no experience without matter. After all if there was no matter, how can we have conscious experiences?

Like I said at the quantum level, it is an illusion, but as we percieve it is real. The brain is a filter, as I said in the essay, the brain can do amazing feats. Why are some people doctors and be tone death and some can compose musical masterpieces and know very little about science? My answer is person has their own reduced portion of the conscious.

Quote:

If the god is not "supernatural", he must be natural, and therefore illusory. This illusory god experiences an illusory universe with illusory brains in parallel with or from other illusory universes where he may or may not do other illusory things? All things illusory are happening through illusory interaction with illusory matter all at the same time, filtered by illusory brains in illusory bodies so that the illusory god can experience the illusion broken up and ordered into illusory time. (Therefore god exists!!)

Pancomputationalism, computational universe theory and John Archibald Wheeler's "It from bit" are examples of related ideas.

You see, at the quantum level it is an illusion, but at the classical level (The one we experience) it is different. It is realilty.

Quote:

How could this god experience anything, anyway, and why?

He experiences it through us.

Quote:

When it comes down to it, how does any of this have any bearing on the plausibility of a god? Because it's all an illusion and we don't know (yet) what may or may not be in another universe? To me this whole thread can be boiled down to "We don't know what's outside of our universe, and when you look at matter closely enough it no longer resembles what we think of as matter. So because we don't know, it could be god!"

See the digital physics link I posted. The universe could be a 'computer program' so to speak.

As for boiling down the thread I think if I had to summerize it I would do so like this:

This matter is here to bring experiences to the infinite consciousness. We are part of this and he experiences everything through us.

Quote:

I'm sure you'll disagree with that assessment, but you have yet to fill in that huge leap between: matter is "illusory" -> multiple universes -> [_____] -> god! (despite many requests)

Nor have you given any coherent definition of "god" beyond disagreeing with others (also despite many requests).

Okay here is how I got there:

matter is illusory->multiverse-> Okay, the blank is the key here. Each universe could obey different laws of physics. Think about it, if you had infinite potiental would you limit yourself to one universe? To one set of laws? Yet if you pick one universe and constantly change it's laws, then that would be magic. It would cause confustion. This is why the multiverse could fit with this. Different laws, different limits of the potiental if you will.

Seriously, you'd save yourself a lot of time by checking out Elaine Pagels's books, and then reading some Carl Jung, then working backward into the Neo-Platonists and St. Valentine (the one who the day is named after). They came up with a coherent scheme for describing the cosmology that you're describing thousands of years ago.

Never heard of them.

Question:

"Never heard of them" should be interpreted to mean, "They are irrelevant because I don't know who they are."

or

"Never heard of them" should be interpreted to mean, "I'll check out these people to see if they have something to tell me."

By saying that you've reinvented a 2500 year old idea I'm not saying your idea is bad. I'm saying that you could save a lot of time by looking at the antecedents of people who already thought of this stuff and using/extending their ideas to develop your own. Why reinvent the wheel when other smart people have already done the bulk of the work for you?

Personally I have a lot more respect for ideas that have a sense of their own history, whether I agree with them or not.

I never knew this was a 2500 year old idea. To answer your question I might want to look into them.

Both sides of this debate have argued this whole thing the wrong way, however, the 'evidence' posed is rather silly. Here's why.

I don't recall you ever explaining why matter is an illusion. Mind clarifying this in terms more than "Well the atoms are spaced out and are actually not touching and it gives the illusion of something solid."

Your reasoning on all of this falls about twenty steps short of proof. Why? It's something that has a chance of being possible, meaning it MUST be right. Right. My guitar has a little worker gnome on the inside of it repairing it when I'm not around. I can prove this because my pickups slowly sink into the guitar by some mysterious force. Because this is the only thing I can come up with as to why it happens, it must be true.

The matter in the universe is merely an illusion, used to bring us experiences. That evolution is taking it's course to insure that we get the most out of our enviroment and to bring different experiences to this infinite consciousness.

Congratulations, Pineapple. You have rediscovered Gnosticism, a form of Christianity that syncretized with Neo-platonism.

Next you should consider whether the material world of illusion is a prison (mainstraim Gnosticism) or a playground (Valentinian Gnosticism) and then you'll know where you fit into the tradition.

It's both. LOL. And that would technically answer wraith's question. Gnosticism was probably, in my estimation, best understood by Rickjenbourgh and Steiner, they both summated the illusion world into 12 forces that acted as a prison to the materially bound but are equally expressions of a transcendent world. The transcendent world by their understanding can be reached by a concious sincerity to seek a God of truth and love. The Aeons (forces), as a prison, then go out like lights one by one and are replaced with more heavenly versions of the same in a progressive tradition. This is really basic Alchemy studied by Paracelsus, Bacon and Valentinus. It's good stuff.

Funny you should say that, a lot of Lucas's story was influenced strongly bt the work of Joseph Campbell whose most notable achievements were in the field of comparitive religion and myth. Yoda, Luke and the Force, especially, were built up using Campbell analysis of archetypes.

Hope I didn't just spoil Star Wars for you. Really he (Lucas) was just trying to create a hero story with the memorable elements that made other hero stories special.

Both sides of this debate have argued this whole thing the wrong way, however, the 'evidence' posed is rather silly. Here's why.

I don't recall you ever explaining why matter is an illusion. Mind clarifying this in terms more than "Well the atoms are spaced out and are actually not touching and it gives the illusion of something solid."

The first part of E=mc^2, Electron diffraction (Which I showed a picture of) etc.. shows that matter is not what it seems.

Quote:

Your reasoning on all of this falls about twenty steps short of proof. Why? It's something that has a chance of being possible, meaning it MUST be right. Right. My guitar has a little worker gnome on the inside of it repairing it when I'm not around. I can prove this because my pickups slowly sink into the guitar by some mysterious force. Because this is the only thing I can come up with as to why it happens, it must be true.

The first part of E=mc^2, Electron diffraction (Which I showed a picture of) etc.. shows that matter is not what it seems.

Quote:

So, without using God, would you mind explaining this illusion to me in detail? Giving the equation to find Energy by using mass and the speed of light squared doesn't really tell me anything about how it's an Illusion.

No, I do not think you are under an illusion if you can't see God. I simply think you are missing the big picture.

I think it’s unfair to say someone is missing the “big picture” if they don’t believe something, especially if your not offering any sort of evidence but just an incomplete theory of how it may be plausible.

Besides, the characteristics that make god implausible are the same ones that make the concept relevant. Maybe your god exists but I don’t care because I didn’t have a void in my life that was exactly the size and shape of your idea

So I don’t think this has anything to do with big pictures. I think this has more to do with you having a need and filling it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

I found this quite weak. You had a very interesting start, lot of science etc. However, after that you had a few sentences that were pretty much saying: "All this means that it could be all of God's ideas and he experiences it". Of course such a possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically. It doesn't give us any reasons to believe it, nor does it really have a link to the science given at the start. It's like saying "If you put pasta and tomato sauce together you get past pomadore therefore I like chips."

The point of the science at the start was to establish that matter is not what it seems, and is an illusion. What I did was try to establish why it is an illusion, and what could be causing this illusion.

It's not an illusion as much as it is broken down into parts that make the way we visualize them an illusion. There is a major difference.And, even if the way we perceive it is an illusion, then why would our perception of consciousness be any different?

'reality' is subjective. Our portion of reality (our universe) is just a part of the infinite potiental.

Do you think you are a subjective object?

In a way yes. However, we are still our own indivdual with our own conscious.

Gauche wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

No, I do not think you are under an illusion if you can't see God. I simply think you are missing the big picture.

I think it’s unfair to say someone is missing the “big picture” if they don’t believe something, especially if your not offering any sort of evidence but just an incomplete theory of how it may be plausible.

Besides, the characteristics that make god implausible are the same ones that make the concept relevant. Maybe your god exists but I don’t care because I didn’t have a void in my life that was exactly the size and shape of your idea

So I don’t think this has anything to do with big pictures. I think this has more to do with you having a need and filling it.

How about if I put it like 'I see things differently than you do'? Would that be fair?

You are correct, that people have big pictures that need filling. That is why I am not an atheist. I see no reason why there couldn't be a big picture.